Question 4:

Are all enlightened ones navel centered? for example, is krishnamurti head or navel centered? was ramakrishna heart or navel centered?

 

 

Every enlightened one is navel centered, but the expression of each enlightened one may flow through other centers. Understand the distinction clearly. Every enlightened one is navel centered; there is no other possibility. But the expression is a different thing.

 

Ramakrishna expresses himself from the heart. He uses his heart as the vehicle of his message.

 

Whatsoever he has found at the navel he expresses through his heart. He sings, he dances - that is his way of expressing his bliss. The bliss is found at the navel, nowhere else. He is centered at the navel, but how to say to others that he is centered at the navel? He uses his heart for the expression.

 

Krishnamurti uses his head for that expression; that is why their expressions are contradictory. If you believe in Ramakrishna you cannot believe in Krishnamurti. If you believe in Krishnamurti you cannot believe in Ramakrishna, because belief is always centered in the expression, not in the experience. Ramakrishna looks childish to a man who thinks with reason: "What is this nonsense - dancing, singing? What is he doing? Buddha never danced, and this Ramakrishna is dancing. He looks childish."

 

To reason the heart always looks childish, but to the heart reason looks useless, superficial.

 

Whatsoever Krishnamurti says is the same. The experience is the same as it was for Ramakrishna or Chaitanya or Meera. But if the person is head centered, his explanation, expression is rational. If Ramakrishna sees Krishnamurti he will say, "Come on, let us dance. Why waste your time? Through dance it can be expressed more easily, and it goes deeper." Krishnamurti will say, "Dance? One gets hypnotized through dance. Do not dance. Analyze! Reason! Reason it out, analyze, be aware."

 

These are different centers being used for expression, but the experience is the same. One can paint the experience - Zen masters have painted their experience. When they became enlightened, they would paint it. They would not say anything, they would just paint it. The RISHIS, sages, of the Upanishads have created beautiful poetry. When they became enlightened they would create poetry. Chaitanya used to dance; Ramakrishna used to sing. Buddha and Mahavir used the head, reason, to explain, to say whatsoever they had experienced. They created great systems of thought to express their experience.

 

But the experience is neither rational nor emotional: it is beyond both. There have been few persons, very few, who could express through both the centers. You can find many Krishnamurtis, you can find many Ramakrishnas, but only sometimes does it happen that a person can express through both the centers. Then the person becomes confusing. Then you are never at ease with that man because you cannot conceive of any relationship between the two; they appear contradictory.

 

If I say something, when I say it I must say it through reason. So I attract many people who are rationalistic, head-oriented. Then one day they see that I allow singing and dancing and they become uncomfortable: "What is this? There is no relationship..." But to me there is no contradiction. Dancing is also a way of speaking - and sometimes a deeper way. Reason is also a way of speaking - and sometimes a very clear way. So both are ways of expression.

 

If you see Buddha dancing, you will be in difficulty. If you see Mahavir playing on a flute, standing naked, then you will not be able to sleep. What happened to Mahavir? Has he gone mad? With Krishna the flute is okay, but with Mahavir it is absolutely unbelievable. A flute in the hand of Mahavir?

 

Inconceivable! You cannot even imagine it. But the reason is not that there is any contradiction between Mahavir and Krishna, Buddha and Chaitanya; it is due to difference of expression. Buddha will attract a particular type of mind - the head-oriented mind - and Chaitanya and Ramakrishna will attract quite the opposite - the heart-oriented mind.

 

But difficulties arise. A person like me creates difficulties: I attract both, and then no one is at ease.

 

Whenever I am talking, then the head-oriented person is at ease, but whenever I allow the other type of expression the head-oriented one becomes uneasy. And the same happens to the other - when some emotional method is used the heart-oriented one feels at ease, but when I discuss, when I reason out something, then he is absent, he is not here. He says, "This is not for me."

 

One lady came just a day before, and she said, "I was at Mount Abu, but then there was a difficulty.

 

The first day when I heard you it was beautiful, it appealed to me; I was just thrilled. But then I saw KIRTAN - devotional chanting and dancing - so I decided to leave immediately; that was not for me.

 

I went to the bus station, but then there was a problem. I wanted to hear you talk, so I came back. I didn't want to miss what you were saying." She must have been in difficulty. She said to me, "It was so contradictory."

 

It appeared so because these centers are contradictory, but this contradiction is in YOU. Your head is not at ease with your heart; they are in conflict. Because of your inner conflict, Ramakrishna and Krishnamurti appear to be in conflict. Create a bridge between your head and your heart, and then you will know that these are mediums.

 

Ramakrishna was absolutely uneducated - no development of reason. He was pure heart. Only one center was developed, the heart. Krishnamurti is pure reason. He was in the hands of some of the most vigorous rationalists - Annie Besant, Leadbeater and the Theosophists. They were the great system-makers of this century. Really, theosophy is one of the greatest systems ever created, absolutely rational. He was brought up by rationalists; he is pure reason. Even if he talks about heart and love, the very expression is rational.

 

Ramakrishna is different. Even if he talks about reason, he is absurd. Totapuri came to him, and Ramakrishna began to learn VEDANTA from him. So Totapuri said, "Leave all this devotional nonsense. Leave this Kali, the mother, absolutely. Unless you leave all this I am not going to teach you, because VEDANTA is not devotion, it is knowledge." So Ramakrishna said, "Okay, but allow me one moment so that I can go and ask the mother if I may leave everything, this whole nonsense.

 

Allow me one moment to ask the mother."

 

This is a heart-oriented man. Even to leave the mother he will have to ask her. "And," he said, "she is so loving, she will allow me, so you do not bother." Totapuri could not understand what he had said. Ramakrishna said, "She is so loving, she has never said no to me at any time. If I say, 'Mother, I am to leave you because now I am learning VEDANTA and I cannot do this devotional nonsense, so allow me please,' she will allow. She will give me total freedom to drop it."

 

Create a bridge between your head and heart, and then you will see that all those who have ever become enlightened speak the same thing, only their languages may differ.

 

- Osho, "The Book of Secrets, Discourse #10, Q4"